Why the US needs to blacklist, censor pirate websites

Daniel Castro's ideas for addressing Internet piracy have made their way into …

Piracy runs rampant on the Internet, but Daniel Castro says it doesn't have to be this way. He wants the US government to start creating a blacklist of Internet sites; once approved by a judge, each site would be cut off from American Internet users at the Domain Name System (DNS) level, where readable locations like "arstechnica.com" are turned into numerical IP addresses. US-based credit card companies would be forbidden from doing any business with the site, and US-based advertising networks couldn't serve ads to the site.

He testified this month before Congress about the need for such measures, and I spoke to him recently about Web blocking, censorship, and why he believes that deep packet inspection (DPI) of Internet traffic by ISPs is more like Gmail than wiretapping. As for due process, Castro says COICA is fair—but he's open to some tweaks.

Crime fighting, Internet-style

Ars: I'm sure we can both agree that there's plenty of piratical behavior on the Internet, but the key question is how we deal with that reality. In your view, why is something like COICA the right way forward?

Castro: If you accept the fact that piracy is a problem, government needs to do something. You have to start from that premise. So if you accept that premise, the question is what's the most effective way of reducing infringement?

The problem we have right now is that there's different types of actors: domestic [pirate] sites, foreign sites, domestic consumers, foreign consumers. You have different strategies for dealing with each of these groups. For domestic sites, you can do things like taking down sites very easily. For foreign sites, you can't do that. The question is, are there other options? Of course there are. You can block sites, for example, at the DNS level. Or you can get everyone who's involved in the Internet, the different intermediaries, to come together and find ways to combat piracy, and that's what COICA is about.

Ars: There has been a host of criticisms about the way COICA might be implemented. One of them I've heard repeatedly is that the utility of DNS censorship is going to be fairly low, given that people can still access the sites in question by IP address or by switching DNS providers. Is this just about making piracy a little bit harder?

Castro: Nobody, including myself, makes the claim that DNS blocking will be 100 percent effective. It might not even be 90 percent effective. But the question is, is it effective enough that it's worth the cost of doing it? I think the consensus from the people that can do it is that yes, it is. There's a very low cost if you have a single list of sites that are engaged in piracy. Once you have this list, there's a variety of steps you can take to make accessing these sites more difficult.

It's crime-fighting. You never stop all crime; the point is, can you reduce it to a tolerable level. Right now, we're not really doing all that much to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and there is a lot more that we can do. As long as the steps are reasonable, we should take them.

Ars: In attempting to seize a recent child porn domain name, ICE accidentally took down an extra 80,000 sites and redirected them to a banner claiming that they had been busted as part of a child porn investigation. Do you have concerns about this DNS-based approach to site blocking, especially since COICA's site blocking hearings could be largely non-adversarial?

Castro: Well, that gets to the issue of process, and certainly the process failed with that ICE takedown. That means it should be corrected; I absolutely agree with that. One of the proposals at the hearing where I testified was that the government might give advance notice at times. You can certainly envision a 72-hour notice period where you let the site know that it has infringing content, we are intending to take it down, and you have 72 hours to respond. That's one possibility. We don't do that in the real world with counterfeiting; we go in and seize counterfeit goods when we see them. If a crime is happening, the police can stop it immediately, and there's a limited amount of time in which they can do so without going to a judge. You can stop a crime in progress, and that's the same question we have on the Internet now.

Ars: I was speaking with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) about this several weeks ago, and she was very sharp on the “due process” issue. She argued that what was going on with ICE takedowns right now were a travesty of justice and probably illegal, in part because of the seize-first-ask-questions-later approach. But it sounds like you're more open to notification and a chance to respond before some of this blacklisting takes effect.

Castro: Sure. I think there's a couple things to keep in mind. You might want to act so swiftly on some sites that you don't notify them. For example, a site like WatchSeason5Episode2ofDexter.tv, which appears right after the show airs. A reasonable process would say that someone in law enforcement can look at the site, talk to the content owner, and agree that it is an infringing site. Maybe they can take that one down in real-time.

Something else that may be a little more ambiguous might have a 72-hour notice, where the site could come back and possibly provide evidence that what happened was incorrect. Remember, of all the sites that ICE has taken down so far, no one has come back and said, "I really wasn't an infringing site," with that one exception.

Ars: Sure, but isn't that a bit like saying, "We took down all of these allegedly infringing sites and none of the foreign operators behind them hired an expensive US lawyer to get their domain name back, so they must agree with what we did"?

Daniel Castro

Castro: If my site was taken down illegally by the federal government, I would complain very loudly. And we haven't heard that from the ones who were taken down. I think they know they were engaging in illegal activity, and some people have said they've stopped.

Ars: You draw a distinction between different kinds of sites. But what we've seen from ICE so far has involved many sites which were clearly infringing, but also sites where it wasn't so clear—sites that engage only in linking, for instance, or those that link to illegal content but also to legal material. So it's interesting to hear you call for something better than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Castro: The purpose of COICA is to go after sites that are dedicated to infringing, where there is a significant portion of the content which is infringing. It's not to say that you can avoid penalties by posting entire seasons of HBO shows alongside a few public domain photos. I think that's ridiculous. Of course you can take down the whole site. There are distinctions that can be made. But at the same time, nobody's talking about taking down someone's personal website because they happen to use a copyrighted photo.

Ars: One of the things Lofgren warned about was that if you go down this road, government agencies like ICE could one day choose to shut down Google. Your reaction?

Castro: I don't think anyone seriously thinks that ICE is going to shut down Google. Sites that play by the rules are in no danger of being taken down because that's the whole point: they're part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Ars: Many of these issues are international. For instance, one of the domains taken down in a recent seizure was the Spanish rojadirectas.com, which was declared legal by Spanish courts. Countries obviously have the right to prevent behavior at home that is legal abroad, but it does seem like this gets a bit more complicated when you're trying to do things like COICA is: preventing multinational payment processors and ad networks from working with companies that are legal in their own jurisdictions. Any concerns about extending US law too far when it comes to shaping the Internet?

Castro: I don't think there's a problem with asking companies in the United States to protect other companies and IP rights holders in the United States. They are based here, they should follow US laws. The fact that a country doesn't protect intellectual property is no excuse to just give them free reign to do whatever they want.

Ars: Should private companies be able to go to court under COICA to obtain website blocks, or should that be reserved for government?

Castro: I don't think there needs to be a private right of action, but there needs to be an easy way for rightsholders to report that their content is being infringed upon and have a process so that enforcement action can be taken. If it appears the government alone is unable to provide a significant level of enforcement, then I think a private right is something that should be considered.

Ars: In your 2009 paper, you talked about getting even more Internet intermediaries involved in antipiracy work, even saying that ISPs should install deep packet inspection (DPI) gear to monitor traffic flowing through their network for possible copyright violations. Would you still like to see ISPs get more involved?

Castro: Yes. ISPs certainly have a role in reducing infringement. One recent study found that more than 25 percent of content on the Internet is infringing content. This has a big impact on ISPs and on all users who are not downloading that material. That's why I think it's important to allow ISPs to engage with their customers who are downloading illegal content in different ways; one of those ways would be deep packet inspection.

That is not wiretapping. Wiretapping is when someone is reading your communications, reading your e-mails. Deep packet inspection can be an automated process, it can do content matching and identification, and it can provide a simple warning to a user. Or it could be used in "three strikes" legislation, like they have in a few European countries—where you receive notice and if it keeps happening, you receive some kind of penalty. If it continues, you might have your Internet connection terminated.

But there are other options as well. Content holders could advertise to these people. If you are downloading a certain band's music, that band could contact you to say, “Hey, we're going to be in your town next month, what if you buy these tickets?”

Ars: This talk about getting intermediaries more involved in stopping infringement sounds like a move away from the traditional “safe harbor” approach we have used for communications networks. How would this sort of approach differ from, say, asking a phone company to listen in on calls to prevent illegal activity, or to block a list of government provided numbers to alleged foreign mobsters?

Castro: If you call known foreign terrorists, your line is probably going to be tapped. But I don't think there's actually a parallel there. I don't think those are the same thing. Deep packet inspection is one option. And the key is that this is automated technology. When Gmail provides contextual ads by scanning your e-mail, there is not a privacy violation because there's no person on the other side who's reading your e-mail.

Fireworks and missiles ahead

COICA promises to be one of the crucial pieces of tech-related legislation that Congress will consider this year, and it promises to involve serious fireworks. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has already promised that COICA will pass this year, but he's up against Senators like Ron Wyden (D-OR), who said last year that COICA was "like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb when what you really need is a precision-guided missile." Wyden has promised to "take the necessary steps to stop [COICA] from passing the United States Senate."

To catch up on our complete COICA interview series, check out our conversations with Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who supports COICA with a few changes, and with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), a fierce opponent of everything that COICA represents.

324 Reader Comments

After the US censors pirate websites, it can then censor porn websites, then it can censor hate speech websites, then it can censor political dissident websites. After all, copyright infringement isn't a federal crime, so other things which aren't federal crimes can go the same route.

After the US censors pirate websites, it can then censor porn websites, then it can censor hate speech websites, then it can censor political dissident websites. After all, copyright infringement isn't a federal crime, so other things which aren't federal crimes can go the same route.

Once one takes the path into censorship, the path seems never-ending.

i agree.they can go after my un-PC old school punk rock site for my art.maybe they won't like my anti-government songs.and talking about government why is my tax money going to this krap instead of feeding the homeless or something good.what arses they are in our sold-out government.COICA = FAIL. waste of our money.sites will use other DNS or other ways to circumvent this stupid and costly piece of law.This is just one reason I have totally stopped buying anything MAFIAA new.i buy their crud used and physical media.

After the US censors pirate websites, it can then censor porn websites, then it can censor hate speech websites, then it can censor political dissident websites. After all, copyright infringement isn't a federal crime, so other things which aren't federal crimes can go the same route.

Once one takes the path into censorship, the path seems never-ending.

I am whole heartedly against this. But I dont think this can ever happen. Keep in mind that we have plenty of guns to grab.

Hat Monster wrote:After the US censors pirate websites, it can then censor porn websites, then it can censor hate speech websites, then it can censor political dissident websites. After all, copyright infringement isn't a federal crime, so other things which aren't federal crimes can go the same route.

Once one takes the path into censorship, the path seems never-ending.

-----//

Well actually, no. Piracy is against the law. Pornography and "hate speech" that are within the limits of the law are, quite obviously, not against the law.

biggest waist of taxpayers dollars ever!!! use the money towards scholarships, or technology grants. the way to fix piracy is to sell something at a price that is right. don't government agencies have better things to do like keep us safe from people that mean to do ACTUAL harm?

After the US censors pirate websites, it can then censor porn websites, then it can censor hate speech websites, then it can censor political dissident websites. After all, copyright infringement isn't a federal crime, so other things which aren't federal crimes can go the same route.

Once one takes the path into censorship, the path seems never-ending.

Disagree. I don't think COICA is going to work to stop piracy. At the same time, if it is enacted, I doubt it would have much of an effect on free speech either. Remember, COICA wouldn't take action until someone complains a copyright is being violated. I doubt anyone is going to complain about porn, hate speech, or protest sites on the basis of copyright (unless those sites really ARE infringing copyright.)

COICA wouldn't even be useful against Wikileaks... although Wikileaks IS violating federal law, so there are plenty of things that come into play.

The DMCA has been around a long time. Show me where the DMCA was used by the government to silence free speech. And remember, censorship is something only the government can do.... corporations filing SLAPP suits and false DMCA claims is abuse of the law but not censorship!

The last reason aside, the entertainment industry has given us every reason to pirate and engauge in file sharing. They try to control how we use content we rightfully own, and treat us like criminals when we don't do what they want. If they want to treat their customers like criminals, then I don't want to be their customer.

But the question is, is it effective enough that it's worth the cost of doing it? I think the consensus from the people that can do it is that yes, it is.

This entire line of thinking is based upon the shaky belief that if you stop people from illegally downloading movies/music/etc. they will then go out an purchase that same content legally. Sure, some people will, but how many people would it take to justify spending the man power and tax money needed to implement COICA?

This is completely ignoring the fact that the government censoring the Internet is just plain wrong.

This is a freedom of speech issue, make no mistake.We don't want a group of assholes deciding what our internet is, thank you very much.And they should know by now, piracy always finds a way.You can't stop piracy with out making compromises that people will never accept.

The only think the entertainment industry has to do is adapt, and find new ways to market their products.

It's like these people are determined to claim ownership of your eyes and ears.Calling this Bill "controversial" is a huge understatement.

It's incredible how powerful a very small group of people has become in the world.

We already know the government in the US works only for the highest bidder, so i wouldn't be shocked if they passed a bill like this.

But thankfully, in spite these entertainment cartels, telecom monopolies and governments that seem to work against it's people on these matters, technological progress is relentless.

They can try to stop it all they want, but once we get to a point where we have ubiquitous gigabit internet, it would become next to impossible to identify copywrong infringers. since they themselves, would be ubiquitous.

These guys want last century back, but it's not going to happen. no matter what they do.

After the US censors pirate websites, it can then censor porn websites, then it can censor hate speech websites, then it can censor political dissident websites. After all, copyright infringement isn't a federal crime, so other things which aren't federal crimes can go the same route.

Once one takes the path into censorship, the path seems never-ending.

There's always a fine line to walk, Hat. Sometimes the government oversteps and we (the populace) are able to take action, sometimes they overstep and there's nothing we can reasonably do about it.

I hope if this passes, we're able to keep the government(s) in check.

On the note of "piracy" I'm not sure if I'm a pirate. I don't get OTA broadcasts where I live (too far away/stuff in the way) and I don't subscribe to cable, so I use Hulu and Netflix, and download everything else that isn't on there. I don't mind waiting, but I think it's ludacris to expect me not to be able to view the same free content that everyone else who doesn't have a mountain in their way can view.

"If you accept the fact that piracy is a problem, government needs to do something."- This is a Non-Sequitir, meaning essentially "it doesnt follow". The National government's job isnt to address every problem; additionally, he is stating his assertion as fact (another fallacy) "You have to start from that premise"

"So if you accept that premise, the question is what's the most effective way of reducing infringement? "- More assertion as fact building on his fallacies immediately prior. For example, I would say the 'question' is: What is the most effective way of reducing infringement without taking any rights away from the people, and especially without removing or impeding on constitutional rights?

"You can block sites, for example, at the DNS level. Or you can get everyone who's involved in the Internet, the different intermediaries, to come together and find ways to combat piracy, and that's what COICA is about. "- This is an either-or fallacy, in which he ignores all but the two options he presents to make the case for one of the options seem stronger.

"You can stop a crime in progress, and that's the same question we have on the Internet now. ""We don't do that in the real world with counterfeiting; we go in and seize counterfeit goods when we see them"- Imcomplete/incorrect comparison; physical goods are not comparable to content on the web for this purpose.

"ISPs certainly have a role in reducing infringement. "- Not a fallacy per se, but last time I checked ISPs are supposed to provide internet services to whoever pays for it, not only provide service to the sites the government says are OK. This IS a freedoms issue.

If the website is doing something illegal, then follow the legal guidelines already in place for taking that website down. The idea of legally enforced, mandatory blacklist sends shivers down my spine.

I don't care how benevolent the dictators that run this blacklist when it's first created, it will be too powerful a mechanism to not eventually succumb to corrupting influences. This is not a slippery slope argument, it's an observation of historical fact.

I do not want the government playing private security force for the media companies. Piracy is not a problem -- it is a nuisance. Media companies are having no problem making more money than ever before. The impacts upon them from piracy are minimal. Once you start down this path everything becomes up for grabs. Today it's the media companies demanding the government censor DNS to stop music and movie pirates. Tomorrow it'll be the newspapers and cable news networks demanding bloggers be censored from reporting on events they're trying to gain revenue from. Censoring DNS is not the answer. Let the free market do its job and stop trying to interfere by using things like COICA. Media companies have the ability to mitigate piracy on their own.

TommySch wrote:

Hat Monster wrote:

After the US censors pirate websites, it can then censor porn websites, then it can censor hate speech websites, then it can censor political dissident websites. After all, copyright infringement isn't a federal crime, so other things which aren't federal crimes can go the same route.

Once one takes the path into censorship, the path seems never-ending.

I am whole heartedly against this. But I dont think this can ever happen. Keep in mind that we have plenty of guns to grab.

The people most willing to use those guns are those least likely to be getting the most out of their internet connections. It is not likely they'd notice the damage COICA creates outside of budget debates.

After the US censors pirate websites, it can then censor porn websites, then it can censor hate speech websites, then it can censor political dissident websites. After all, copyright infringement isn't a federal crime, so other things which aren't federal crimes can go the same route.

Once one takes the path into censorship, the path seems never-ending.

Disagree. I don't think COICA is going to work to stop piracy. At the same time, if it is enacted, I doubt it would have much of an effect on free speech either. Remember, COICA wouldn't take action until someone complains a copyright is being violated. I doubt anyone is going to complain about porn, hate speech, or protest sites on the basis of copyright (unless those sites really ARE infringing copyright.)

COICA wouldn't even be useful against Wikileaks... although Wikileaks IS violating federal law, so there are plenty of things that come into play.

The DMCA has been around a long time. Show me where the DMCA was used by the government to silence free speech. And remember, censorship is something only the government can do.... corporations filing SLAPP suits and false DMCA claims is abuse of the law but not censorship!

The DMCA is not used by the government to stop speech b/c it sets up rules for private parties (industry) and consumers to follow. It really doesn't touch on the government at all.

It has been used numerous times to stop/silence speech. There are many examples out there of private actors silencing speech they don't like. For example, a high profile one was McCain's presidential campaign videos were all taken down from Youtube by nebulous DMCA claims against them.

The US Chamber of Commerce used DMCA to take down criticism of them by the Yes Men.

If you don't want to call it censorship, that's fine. But it smells like it.

Free speech isn't just about porn, hate speech, etc. It's about saying WHATEVER you want without any restrictions (well, very minimal restrictions). ICE's takedown of various blogs raises a free speech issue.

The other issue is it really the governments job to protect a companies monopoly? The government gives a company/person all the rights, AND enforces them for you with everyone's money. Sounds pretty good to me if you can get it. It's not a good use of taxpayer money though and is destined to be ineffective.

If it is a copyright issue, then in the US you have the DMCA (whatever) to do takedowns. If it is in some one else's country then you have to abide by their laws regardless of whether you agree with their copyright laws. Most of the BS that's happening today with copyright is because of lobbying from US corporations and payoffs to senators and congresscritters.

Most countries that have signed the Bern convention follow the acceptable rules for copyright, not the additional BS that US corporate interests want.

The best thing that could happen to copyright is to reduce it to 10 years after initial release, with no extensions.

Maybe I'm missing something...but where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to regulate the internet? There's only a short list of their responsibilities, and that isn't one of them. (Neither is the EPA, FCC, or a whole host of other regulatory agencies). I think the government needs to stay out of it, we're already well on the road to socialism so as it is.

Hat Monster wrote:After the US censors pirate websites, it can then censor porn websites, then it can censor hate speech websites, then it can censor political dissident websites. After all, copyright infringement isn't a federal crime, so other things which aren't federal crimes can go the same route.

Once one takes the path into censorship, the path seems never-ending.

-----//

Well actually, no. Piracy is against the law. Pornography and "hate speech" that are within the limits of the law are, quite obviously, not against the law.

PIRACY, as in "Yaaar shiver me timbers". In other words the ones that hijack ships/trucks by main force.There are both international and national laws against this.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATION, which this refers to, is not a legal matter. Hence the way that it's two sides that go head to head, as apposed to an individual/company vs a prosecutor.

"If you accept the fact that piracy is a problem, government needs to do something."

I don't. It shouldn't. End of story. On another note, Hat Monster hit it on the head. Any form of censorship is never a solution to a problem. Human nature dictates that censorship itself is a method of creating a demand for that which is censored.

Maybe I'm missing something...but where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to regulate the internet? There's only a short list of their responsibilities, and that isn't one of them. (Neither is the EPA, FCC, or a whole host of other regulatory agencies). I think the government needs to stay out of it, we're already well on the road to socialism so as it is.

I cannot begin to iterate my feelings on this issue. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.As others have said, allowing the government to do any type of restriction is a terrible slippery slope. This is a poor idea, a horrible horrible terrible idea. How long then until our internet is like China's? Nate... NO!

Many, many weaselly arguments but this stood out as particularly flagrant:

Castro wrote:

I don't think there's a problem with asking companies in the United States to protect other companies and IP rights holders in the United States. They are based here, they should follow US laws. The fact that a country doesn't protect intellectual property is no excuse to just give them free reign to do whatever they want.

So there you go. You either have laws in line with the US or you don't protect IP. Bless.

I would have asked why he thought this was a permissible form of prior restraint. The fact that some of the content blocked would be illegally transferred shouldn't be a reason for halting their communication before it has a chance to take place (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rogressive).